Which court would most likely have jurisdiction over this case?
What roles do governors and presidents play in the policy-making process?
What is true of the federal level of government and the state and local level in the creation ofpublic policy?
When a person is charged with a federal crime, which level of the judicial system will he or shemost likely encounter first?
How does original jurisdiction differ from appellate jurisdiction for federal courts?
How does appellate jurisdiction differ from original jurisdiction for federal courts?
What is one major difference between state and federal courts in the us?
Which scenario describes a federal court going against the principle of precedent?
A court rules that a state is allowed to racially segregates restrooms because earliercourts ruled in favor of segregated busesPolice charge a defendant with a crime=?= the defendant is found guilty or not guilty=?Whichstatements best complete the diagram of the steps in a federal criminal case?
What is one of the major roles the supreme court plays in the federal judiciary?
Which part of the judicial system best completes the bubble labeled 1/3 in the diagram?
What roles do governors and presidents play in the policy-making process?
What is true of the federal level of government and the state and local level in the creation ofpublic policy?
1-The us supreme court3- U.S. district courts3.2.5 QuizWhat is a major difference between a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion issued by theSupreme Court? f
journal article
Why Must Inferior Courts Obey Superior Court Precedents?Stanford Law Review
Vol. 46, No. 4 (Apr., 1994)
, pp. 817-873 (57 pages)
Published By: Stanford Law Review
//doi.org/10.2307/1229094
//www.jstor.org/stable/1229094
This is a preview. Log in to get access
Abstract
The doctrine of hierarchical precedent is so deeply ingrained in judicial practice and consciousness that its dominance has rarely been questioned, and, paradoxically, its validity has never been justified. In addressing that paradox, Professor Caminker undertakes a comprehensive inquiry into the constitutional and rationalist justifications for the doctrine, outlining and assessing the various arguments supporting differing degrees of autonomy for the lower courts. He concludes that while the doctrine of hierarchical precedent is ultimately defensible, it is not as obviously defensible as the doctrine's strength would suggest. Further, no one single rationale justifies the practice for all levels of the judiciary. A persuasive account must rely on a combination of constitutional and prudential arguments. Finally, Professor Caminker argues that his account of the underpinnings of hierarchical precedent helps resolve current controversies in constitutional law and jurisprudence, including whether existing Supreme Court decisions would still bind inferior federal or state courts if Congress stripped the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over some cases, and whether bankruptcy judges must obey federal district court precedents.
Journal Information
Founded in 1948, the Stanford Law Review is a general-interest academic legal journal. Each year the Law Review publishes one volume, which appears in six separate issues between November and May. Each issue contains material written by student members of the Law Review, other Stanford law students, and outside contributors, such as law professors, judges, and practicing lawyers. Approximately 2,600 libraries, attorneys, judges, law firms, government agencies, and others subscribe to the Law Review. The Law Review also hosts lectures and an annual live symposium at Stanford Law School.
Publisher Information
The Stanford Law Review is operated entirely by Stanford Law School students and is fully independent of faculty and administration review or supervision. The principal missions of the Law Review are to contribute to legal scholarship by addressing important legal and social issues, and to educate and foster intellectual discourse at Stanford Law School. In addition to producing a publication, the Law Review also hosts lectures and an annual live symposium.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Stanford Law Review © 1994 Stanford Law Review
Request Permissions